What problems would this solve? =============================== Let's make it possible to run special KumaScript "widgets" in boxes in the sidebar and header areas of MDN. By allowing people to create these widgets, they can be mixed-and-matched in different zones, customized by the teams behind each zone, and so forth, resulting in the ability to even further customize the look and feel of each zone. In addition, we might eventually allow users to do their own customization, picking the widgets that provide the information or links they most often use and displaying them where they prefer them to be located. Who would use this? =================== Zone coordinators and the MDN admin team primarily, at first, but possibly eventually more users. What would users see? ===================== More awesome stuff that is likely more powerful and interactive in the UI areas of pages, with different layouts and structures in each zone. What would users do? What would happen as a result? =================================================== Nothing, for users. Admins would produce special macros in KumaScript (possibly in a special namespace, or with a special flag set on them indicating they're compatible with being run as widgets). Creating widgets would require an additional privilege above and beyond standard template editing. Is there anything else we should know? ======================================
I do not agree that this blocks, because the zone nav is not bound to the existing MDN sidebar UI.
(In reply to Daniel Buchner [:dbuc] from comment #1) > I do not agree that this blocks, because the zone nav is not bound to the > existing MDN sidebar UI. But this would be a good way to implement whatever UI we want for the zones. I think implementing some entirely new system for the zones is a waste of time; this would be an easy way to produce the zones' content.
I'd like to base our decisions on the best UX/UI for the implementation, not over where the present location of various <div> elements are in a template - surely you agree, right?
(In reply to Daniel Buchner [:dbuc] from comment #3) > I'd like to base our decisions on the best UX/UI for the implementation, not > over where the present location of various <div> elements are in a template > - surely you agree, right? What are you talking about? This is about how to actually implement things.
What I'm talking about, is that the best UI/UX for a the initiative does not imediately === "whatever is easier to fit into the current wiki layout". What if the best UI for zone-like content and product areas is very different layout for everything below the header? We may even want a different template with different navigation in our zones. I simply want to avoid saying "make sure it's easy to fit into the current structure" <-- that limits us right off the bat.
The best thing about doing this is that it becomes possible for the folks building a zone to create areas of their custom UX that can reference documentation contents. For example, if you're building out the Games zone, your custom UX could include a box in the sidebar with a list of pages about a specific gaming technology, or could have a rotating banner with hot stories, or whatever. This would make it incredibly easy for zone teams to produce custom UX experiences, which is the entire point of the zone system. This has nothing to do with the "present location" of anything. It's about empowering the zone teams to create things that look exactly the way they want, which is the whole point. :)
(In reply to Daniel Buchner [:dbuc] from comment #5) > What I'm talking about, is that the best UI/UX for a the initiative does not > imediately === "whatever is easier to fit into the current wiki layout". > What if the best UI for zone-like content and product areas is very > different layout for everything below the header? We may even want a > different template with different navigation in our zones. I simply want to > avoid saying "make sure it's easy to fit into the current structure" <-- > that limits us right off the bat. I didn't say anything about the current wiki layout. Would you please stop assuming I'm some kind of fucking moron and pay attention to what I say?
We've gone 2 years without this, not needed.
Status: NEW → RESOLVED
Last Resolved: 3 years ago
Resolution: --- → WONTFIX
You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.